320 CLASSICAL LITERATURE.-The Pronunciation of Latin. [Oct. some new, are scattered about as if the place was a workshop instead of a church. I conclude this letter, in which I have outstripped the bounds I intended, but I trust the importance of the sub on Mr. URBAN, ject will atone for its length; and with the hope that it may be the means of drawing the public attention to the church, and that, like York Cathedral, it may owe something to the press, I subscribe myself, E.I.C. CLASSICAL LITERATURE. Mere, Oct. 10. MY reading the well written paper Italy and the Italians," in your number for June, and talking about the same time with a descendant of the " gens togata," led me into a train of thought on the pronunciation of Latin, as it was spoken by the Romans, and as it is now read by the scholars of Europe. Some of the latter must be wrong, inasmuch as they differ from each other; and few are likely to be exactly right, because they give the Latin letters all the peculiar sounds they have in their own tongues. though it would not be easy to learn what was the exact pronunciation of the ancient Romans, it would be very easy to speak it more correctly than we do. A was always ah among the ancient Romans. It is not likely that the Romans pronounced the vowels as the English do 1. Because we are singular in sounding them, having all the alphabets of Europe against us; and because our i and u are not indeed vowels or simple sounds, but dipthongs; i being formed of à and e, and u of e and oo, altered in quick succession. 2. Because we give different sounds to the same vowel, as followed by single or double consonants, or connected with particular letters; as the a in quartus, pater, pannus: thus pronouncing Latin by the rules of English, of which the Romans knew nothing. 3. Because we must suppose that the Romans gave Latin all the melody of which it is capable; and it is less melodious pronounced in the English than in the Italian manner. 4. Because, however the Italian language may be corrupted, it is the true offspring of Latin; and its alphabet is therefore likely to be more consonant with that of the Latin than is the English. If the English mode of pronouncing Latin is wrong, the next question is, whether it is possible to find out the right one; and, if it is, whether the knowing it will be worth the search. To which we may say, that, if a language be worth learning at all, it is worth learning correctly; and, if Latin is the common language of scholars, they should all speak it alike: and, 1. Because, as say the grammarians, a was made the first letter of the alphabet from its having the most simple sound, and its being most easily uttered: and ah is a more simple sound than ā, because it is formed by only opening the mouth, while the latter is not made without putting forward the tongue in a particular way with relation to the palate. 2. Because it is pronounced so in all languages written by the Cadmean alphabets. 3. Because we are forced to pronounce it so in some places in Latin; and as the Romans had not our rules for altering its sound, and did not use marks for it, we must suppose that they always sounded it ah. 4. Because it is not necessary to alter the sound of the vowels for the sake of quantity; for in the Italian ămăre the first a is short, and the other long, though they have both the like sound. E. If the Romans pronounced a, ah, they of course pronounced e, ā, or ay. Because, as e is the vowel next to a in the alphabet, so a, next to ah, is the most simple sound. 2. Because e is a in Italian. 3. For the third argument on the sound of a. 4. Because by so sounding it, we make Latin words borrowed from Greek more like the originals, as yovu, genu; apvтaíva, arutena; πλaτéîa, platea, &c. and adversus, adversum, vertat, vestrum, more like advorsus, advorsum, vortat, vostrum, as those words were sometimes written. I. If a and e were ah and a, we may say as confidently that i was ee. Because it is formed by the next step of approximation of the tongue to the palate. 1831.] On the Pronunciation of Latin. 2. Because it is so in Italian, and other languages. 3. Because we pronounce it so in many cases; and the only reason why we do not in all, is that we pronounce by the rules of a language with which Latin had never any thing to do. 4. Because, to pronounce Julii, and fluvii, Jul-eye-eye and fluv-eye-eye would sound so harsh that nobody can suppose the Romans ever did so; and to pronounce them as we generally do, Jul-e-i and fluv-c-i, would be to pronounce a vowel differently from itself, that is, from its alphabetical sound, which few would do but Englishmen. I am aware of the marked vowels in French, German, Danish, and Swedish; but they are no exceptions; for as the marks fix their dif ferent sounds, they are equal to different characters. J. With the Romans J was, without doubt, an aspirated I, as it is now with the Spaniards in Ojos, o-hios, &c. not aspirated harshly by expelling the breath forcibly from the lungs, but by putting the organs of speech into the position for sounding ee, and then doing so with a slight force of breath between the tongue and palate. Its power was between that of our Y consonant, and the French J. 1. Because the J originated from the Hebrew and the Greek I. 2. Because by so pronouncing it, we reconcile the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin spelling; as in app', 'Iaкwß, Jacob; 'lavos, Janus; 'Iepovoadǹp, Jerusalem; and others. 3. Because the Italians still write the plural of specchio, occhio, and others, speech, occhj, and so on, instead of occhii, specchii; pronouncing the j like ee. O was sounded by the Romans as we pronounce it in the alphabet, but not as we sometimes sound it in words: as in opera, for which we say aupera, when it should be o-pay-ra; for we can have no ground for supposing that the Latins sometimes made O a Greek ❤, and at other times a German a. U was oo, or the U of the Italians, as we generally sound it. I have stated before that it could not have been like our alphabetical U, which is a diphthong; and as few will be apt to pronounce it as the French or Welsh U, we need not say more on the subject. GENT. MAG. October, 1831. 321 V was no doubt like our V, though Littleton in his Latin Dictionary says, "Censeo priscos Romanos V consonam non aliter ferè proferre solitos, quam nos hodie pronunciamus W," but allows that he has not proof to uphold the opinion; and observes that according to Fabius, the ancients called it by the Hebrew name Vau; and that Priscianus states f and v to have had formerly the same power. If V had been equal to our W, B would not have been so fit to take place of it as it has done, since Virgilius is written in Greek Bipyidios. B and V were formerly confounded in Spanish, and the Russians, who have most of the Greek alphabet, give the power of V to the character B at this day. AU. I should suppose that in the dipthong au, the letters were both sounded in the Italian manner; and not au in the English way; for otherwise they could not indeed be a diphthong; a diphthong being des ployyos, i. e. a double sound, and accordingly we have in Dante Che nel pensier rĭnnūovă lā păūră. In fact, as we pronounce au, we do not sound either of the letters, but utter a sound different from both. E. For the like reason we may suppose that the Romans sounded both letters in the dipthong a, which will reconcile the Latin spelling of Greek words, as Alowоs, Esopus; Aivéas, Eneas; Alolos, Eolus, &c. I know the Italians are against me here, since they write for the plural case, case; bona, buone; alta, alte; &c. but it must be remembered that, if they do not sound two vowels, they do not write them as their forefathers did: and if they are against me in one thing, they confirm me in another, since they pronounce the e, aie. : C. Another question is, whether the Latins pronounced C soft before e, i, and y, or always hard like k. I should think always hard. 1. Because that was certainly its alphabetical sound. 2. Because, as Littleton says, "Cum literæ altera alterius sibi potestatem assumant, magnam necesse est oriri confusionem;" for if Cis sounded like S, it is not easy to distinguish between Cella and Sella; Cedo and Sedo; Census and Sensus; Cicer and Siser; Cio and Scio; and others. 322 CLASSICAL LITERATURE.-Statue of Cyril Jackson. (Oct. 3. Because by giving it the power of k we make Latin words from Greek more like the originals; as KEVτрOV, centrum; κıðapa, cithara; κɩpкos, circus; KUKVOS, cygnus; Kνжроs, Cyprus, and others; and the past tenses of verbs more like the present, as cano, cecini; capio, cepi; cado, cecidi; for who would suppose, from the sound of seepi, that it was the verb capio? Because the Germans still call their Emperor "der Kaiser," which is without doubt the Latin word Cæsar, for the Cæsarean operation is in German Kaiserschitt. G. If C was always hard, we may be sure that G was; for they are so nearly equal in power, that, according to Ausonius, C was originally used instead of G, which is proved by the "Columna Duiliana," where agnam and legionem, are written acnam and lecionem. But there is yet a stronger proof that C and G were always hard. We know that ad, ob, sub, &c. before some consonants, dropped their last letters and took those consonants instead, as in il-ludo, ac-cido, oc-curro, suc-cedo; and that they took not only the character, but also the sound of those letters for the people had most likely worn down the words into those smoother shapes by long and continual use, before they had cultivated grammar and writing at all: as the irregular verbs of all languages have been worn out of the regular form of conjugation by greater use, as naturally as pebbles are smoothed down by attrition. Now in the word suc-cedo, if we pronounce it suc-sedo, the sub certainly drops its last letter, and takes, what? the character, but not the sound of the first letter in the root: but the character alone is nothing: for I argue that the practice was known among the Latins before they cultivated grammar or writing at all, as in Welsh, different letters take place of each other in particular situations, maen becoming faen, maur, vaur, and so on; not by a foremade rule, but as a natural effect of the genius of the language. The hard and soft c and g of Spanish, Danish, and Swedish oppose me. Let the scholar draw his own inference. TIA, TIO, TIU. We cannot suppose these letters were pronounced sha, sho, shu; that t before i and another vowel sounds like s. Littleton, before quoted, thinks that the Goths are to blame; "qui," says he, "sibilum istum veteribus ignotum et inauditum in Latium invexêre." But whoever brought it into Latium, it is gone out again now, since Natio, Conversatio, are in Italian Nazione, Conversazione, pronounced Natseeonay, Conversatseeonay, &c. This however has not long been the spelling, as we find in old copies of Italian authors Natione, and Conversatione: but we know the Italians have corrupted the sound of those letters, because they have turned tio into zione, and tia into za, dropping the i altogether. Y. seems to have had a sound between that of U and I, something like the French e in le. 1. Because the ancient Latins used U instead of it; Ennius having Purrum and Fruges; for Pyrrhum and Phryges. 2. Because it took place of the Greek v, as in Kunрos, Cyprus; KUкvos, cygnus; Kvλwopos, cylindrus, &c. 3. Because there was no need of it, if it had exactly the sound of I or U, though perhaps of the two it was most like u. To put my meaning in the clearest light, I have subjoined the first four lines of the Æneid, spelt according to the before supposed pronunciation of the Romans. Arma veerumquai cahno, Troyaee quee pree mus ab orees [vainit Eetahliam fahto profoogus Lahveenahquai Leetora; moolt' eel' et terris yactahtus et alto [nis ub eeram. Vee soopairoom, saeevaee memorame YoonoYours, &c. W. BARNES. STATUE OF CYRIL JACKSON. Ere he rebuke our trespass overbold: The sons of Wolsey; on each youthful head spread Our path with all the pomp of classic lore, 1831.] Statue of Newton.-Quantity of Suspicio ? STATUE OF NEWTON. CAN sculpture think? or hath the soaring mind Left here below the mere corporeal mould, Not now more statue-like than when of old, Entranced in contemplation, he divined The mysteries of earth and heaven, assigned Laws to the planetary spheres, controlled The comets, bade the sun his blaze unfold Into the many-coloured hues that bind The showery arch: and onward pressed alone Into the firmamental worlds of light, Where e'en the Seraphim with trembling trod; Then turning, at the footstool of the throne, Upcalled us, through the radiant infinite, To prostrate prayer before the mount of God. HE who prevents a scholar from wasting his time, may perhaps claim the next palm to one who puts him in possession of a valuable piece of knowledge. A small discovery may therefore be worth communicating to you, as circumstances might possibly render the ascertaining of such a trifle desirable, though it would not repay the trouble of seeking. In every edition of the Latin Gradus, which I have had the opportunity of consulting, the following line, adduced to prove the quantity of suspicio, is attributed to Cornelius Nepos : Suspicione Paris, ne credite, ludimur, inquit. Its claim, however, to this Augustan authority is false: the line in fact belongs to Josephus Iscanus, or Exoniensis, and occurs in his poem de Bello Trojano, lib. ii. 192. At æger iniqua Suspicione Paris: Ne credite,ludimur,(inquit,) Dardanidae, &c. How, then, comes it to be ascribed to Cornelius Nepos? The Latin poem de Bello Trojano, about whose real author there is now no doubt, was once attributed to the classical biographer. At least it bore his name: as, for instance, among the "Belli Trojani scriptores præcipui," &c. Basil. 1573, it appears with this strange title: "Daretis Phrygii poetarum et historicorum omnium primi de Bello Trojano liber primus, Latio Jure a Cornelio Nepote carmine festivo donatus." At the end also of Spondanus's Homer it is entitled: "Daretis Phrygii, &c. de Bello 323 Trojano libri sex, Latino carmine a Cornelio Nepote eleganter redditi." The question then arises, what is the true quantity of suspicio? The second syllable has perhaps been wrongly shortened on the supposed authority of an Augustan writer, when we perhaps should rather have followed the example of Martial, who thus lengthens it: Ollinitur minimæ si qua est SUSPICIO rimæ. XI. xlv. 5. I shall leave the settling of this point to some correspondent more accomplished in metrical knowledge, being content with having traced a line of doubtful authority to its true source. The poem in which it occurs, contains some elegant and spirited passages, but is in a very corrupt state even in the latest editions. For some account of Josephus Iscanus, and his works, see Fabricii Bibliotheca Latina, edited by Ernesti, vol. i. p. 114, or rather Valpy's Delphin Classics, No. LXXXII. p. 639, where Fabricius's Notitia Literaria is reprinted with some additions. R. R. C. Julius Cæsar's Commentaries on the Gallic War, from the Text of Oudendorp, with a selection of Notes from Dionysius Vossius, from Drs. Davies and Clarke, from Oudendorp and other Editors and Philologists: to which are added Examination Questions. By E. H. Barker, Esq. late of Trin. Coll. Cambr. For the use of Colleges and Schools. Post 8vo. pp. 265. WE shall not discuss the general merits of the Commentaries ascribed to Cæsar, whether written by him or not. Of their utility we have ample proofs, in the information which they give of our own ancient history. A difficult part of that history is a satis-superque for our present scanty limits. might be expected from Mr. Barker, the work is excellently edited. As The part to which we allude, is this. "Tabule repertæ sunt, literis Græcis confectæ. "In another part of these Commentaries, 6, 14, Cæsar relates that the Druids, in matters which did not concern the discipline of their own order, that is, in private and public transactions, were accustomed to use the Greek letters. By Greek letters, I here understand the Greek language.' Strabo, 4, p. 181, confirms this very statement; for he informs us that a little before his own age, the custom prevailed in Gaul, of writing the forms of agreements, of contracts, and of loans in Greek, Ta ovμColaia 324 On the Universal use of Greek by the ancients. Exanvioti ygadova. And here I interpret Fλavior in the Greek language.' Since, then, this practice prevailed in Gaul even in the time of Cæsar, we may understand by the expression of Strabo a little before his own age,' that the custom was introduced there even before the arrival of Cæsar in Gaul. So much on the question of time, so far as our knowledge goes; but as to the way in which Greek letters were imported into Gaul, Strabo supplies the information. For the people of Marseilles, a Greek colony, (Strabo, 4, p. 179. Justin, 43, 4), a little before the age of Strabo, inspired the Gauls with so great a love of the Greeks σTi xa συμβολαία Ελληνιστι γράφειν. p. 24. Our Commentator, to reconcile this knowledge with two other statements, viz. that Cæsar sent dispatches in Greek characters, that they might not be understood by the Nervii, if intercepted, and conversed with Divitiacus, a Druid, through an interpreter, supposes that the Gallic and Druidical knowledge of Greek was a part of learning not universal among the people. Borlase says, that it was the universal fashion of the world to write in Greek two or three centuries before the time of our Saviour. Cicero, in his oration, pro Archid, says, that Greek was read in almost all nations, Latin only in its own limits; and Pliny in his Chapter of Weights and Measures, that there was a necessity for employing Greek terms, and both hed and Cicero, that, under the same necessity, they were to be used upon all occasions. Aurelius Victorf informs us, that Evander, an Arcadian, first taught the Italians to read and write, and that Romulus and Remus were sent to Gabii "Græcarum Latinarumque literarum ediscendarum gratiâ." Capitolinus says, that Maximinus Junior used to turn Virgil's lines into Greek verse; and he and Lampridius mention Greek Literatores as distinct from Latin ones. Suetonius adds, that Claudius was very fond of talking Greek. So much for the universality of Greek. Now conceding Ελληνιζω to mean usage of the Greek language, we think that Cæsar, in the passages questioned, may have [Oct. been misunderstood. He is speaking, in the passage quoted, of a Muster Roll or Census of the Population; and Zo simus informs us, that there were persons called Notarii, who registered the names of troops, prisoners, &c. and who were in fact Mustermasters. Who or what were the persons who performed this office among the Gauls, we do not know; but, we observe, that Cæsar does not attribute the knowledge of Greek in general to the Druids, only that they used Greek characters" in reliquis fere rebus, publicis privatisque rationibus." Now we understand rationes here in our arithmetical sense of accounts, and, as the Gauls interred with the dead such accounts for payment in the next world by the debtors, we are inclined to take Strabo's Evμßoλaia in its sense of syngrapha, æs alienum, or pecunia credita. If Divitiacus was the Druid mentioned by Cicero, he understood both Physiology and Augury; and Cicero himself says, that they (the Latins) had only Greek words for philosophical and similar matters. It does not however follow, that because a man uses Greek terms, intermixed with his native tongue, he therefore understands the language; and it is plain that Cæsar's Divitiacus did not know either Greek or Latin, for Cæsar1 conversed with him through C. Valerius Procillus, a prince of the province of Gaul. We do not find, in the Roman historians, that in the countries and times. alluded to, there were any other figures or characters known than those of the Greeks or Latins, certainly not the Arabic numerals, or Oriental letters. As to the Gothic or Runic, nothing was known of it in these parts before the invasion of Italy. Greek, not Latin, we have before seen from Cicero, was the universal language of the day; and through this universality, we presume that the characters were both known to and used by the Gauls and Druids. We shall here leave this useful book with only two observations, viz. that the philological notes are very valuable, and that the introduction of absurd wood-cuts, representing from fancy the Gallic cities to please school-boys, only misleads them. There are plenty of real antiquities and restorations, which might be used. k Hist. Ang. iii. 705 b. |